A twice-weekly syndicated newspaper column on California public affairs.

Monday, December 12, 2016

AT LAST, ONE UTILITIES COMMISSION WING MAKING SENSE

CALIFORNIA
FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2016, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

"AT
LAST, ONE UTILITIES COMMISSION WING MAKING SENSE"

At long last, one wing of the state’s
Public Utilities Commission is making sense on a major dispute commissioners
will decide between a big utility and its millions of customers.

At issue is who will pay the enormous
costs of the 2007 Witch, Guejito and Rice fires that killed at least 10 persons
and destroyed more than 1,125 homes in a wide swath of the San Diego area. The
fires began with power lines owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. that
arced dramatically when dry winds reached 100 mph and more in October of that
year. But the company’s latest rate increase application asks the PUC to dun
customers – including residents who have since rebuilt their charred homes –
for 90 percent of its approximately $380 million in fire-related expenses.

In some ways, this rate increase
request from a company whose board of directors includes the sister of Gov.
Jerry Brown is even more egregious than the PUC’s ruling in 2014 to force
customers of both SDG&E and Southern California Edison Co. to absorb about
70 percent of the $4.7 billion cost of decommissioning the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station in northern San Diego County. The plant closure was largely
the result of an Edison blunder, part of the reason that ruling is now being
reconsidered.

The Witch Fire began as a small blaze
caused by power lines near Ramona, then grew exponentially within 24 hours to
reach the San Diego city limits. It soon combined with smaller fires to
eventually incinerate whole neighborhoods and cul de sacs.

This was not open rural country, but
high-priced suburban real estate. Evacuations were ordered during a three-week
period in cities like Oceanside and Encinitas, Del Mar Heights and Carmel
Valley, Rancho Santa Fe and Rancho Bernardo and more. More than 197,000 acres
burned and more than 500,000 persons had to leave their homes at least for
awhile.

In the rate increase application,
there is no talk about the company compensating affected customers for their
own fire-related costs, as most might think fair. Damage claims afterward came
to more than $4 billion, much of it not covered by insurance.

Now the PUC’s own Office of Ratepayer
Advocates, largely passive during the San Onofre dispute and the controversy
over token punishment of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for its negligence (the
term used by federal prosecutors) in the 2010 San Bruno gas pipeline explosion
that killed eight persons, has for once taken a forceful stand on a significant
issue.

Testimony filed in late fall saw the
OPA roundly condemn SDG&E, whose actions it called “not those of a prudent
manager.” The office argued that the utility did not comply with state rules on
vegetation management, which is as crucial around power lines as it is for
homes in fire-prone areas. The company should not be rewarded for ignoring
regulations, the OPR argued.

SDG&E, of course, claims it is
entitled to reimbursement for its fire-related expenses, which would cost the
average customer $1.67 per month for several years.

“The alleged involvement of SDG&E
facilities in the ignitions of the three fires does not show (the firm) acted
unreasonably or imprudently,” company lawyers said.

The case creates a major test for the
scandal-plagued PUC, whose current president, Michael Picker, keeps promising
more transparency and adherence to rules prohibiting private contacts between
commissioners, their staff and utility regulators during rate cases. Despite
the rules, such contacts have long been common.

If SDG&E ends up paying only about
10 percent of its expenses from a hugely traumatic fire caused in large part by
its equipment and its inaction, the PUC will be saying there’s been no change
despite many scandals.

Only if the company’s proposal is cut
by much more than half will there be any reason to believe this commission has
turned a page and become more friendly to the consumers it is supposed to
serve.

-30-Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The
Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the
Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover
fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Thomas Elias writes the syndicated California Focus column, appearing twice weekly in 88 newspapers around California, with circulation over 2.2 million.
He has won numerous awards from organizations like the National Headliners Club, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Press Club, and the California Taxpayers Association. He has been nominated three times for the Pulitzer Prize in distinguished commentary.
Elias is the author of two books, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It" (now in its third edition; also published in Japanese and recently optioned for a television movie) and "The Simpson Trial in Black and White," co-authored with the late Dennis Schatzman.